You are here

All Recent Comments

Going back and exploring further in the woodfortrees website, I found that it may be possible to cherry pick almost anything you want to try to prove a preconceived agenda. But a little digging found this information. Quoting now:

Trail, it's far from a diversion. Anyone that works in the system and is out in the field all the time can see changes almost daily. If you think Arizona isn't faced with climate change factors, especially in relation to water, then you have your head buried deep in the sand. Fact is that global warming is as serious of a threat to arizona as nuclear war. It is also true the climate is alwa

(Reply from volunteer moderator) Kurt has been off-line for a few days, gathering some information for future stories, and hopefully getting a little break from the relentless job of keeping this site going 24/7. I anticipate he'll be back by tomorrow.

Yep, GW ( Global Warming not George W. ) is so much more of a threat to the Parks than Iran, ISIS, China, a Nuclear Middle East, Baltimore, war on cops etc. Just another little diversion. Almost as good as the Kardashians but with a little intellectual air:). Sorry, things have gotten so much like a Rod Serling episode. Where is Kurt BTW?

Beach, thank you for posting the website for RSS. I did access the RSS site and did some other minor research on this company. I agree it is a reputable concern headed by Dr. James Wertz, an MIT graduate. The company is a contractor to NASA and to the Commerce department.

And then we wonder why Americans are becoming a society of dumbed down idiots void of math and science, and seemingly stuck on stupid. Yep, the earth is cooling. BWAHAHAHAHA.. Here's a link for you beach... I take it you were part of the study.

The "data" is from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) is a world leader in processing and analyzing microwave data collected by satellite microwave sensors. Their mission is to provide research-quality geophysical data to the global scientific community. http://www.remss.com

Here is a link to the source of beach's "data."Yup. Looks real reliable, doesn't it?I especially enjoyed this line from the bottom of the page: "I welcome constructive suggestions of new algorithms or datasets I could add, and in particular help from experts if I've got any of the maths badly wrong (which is quite possible)."

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2293/NASA has just released its data and details about its future projections based onmultiple competing climate models. This is a major resource and treasure trove of scientific information.

Here's a thought for all the folks hollering that they pay taxes to support the parks so they shouldn't be expected to pay any additional fees.The national parks receive something like 0.001 percent of the national budget.What did you pay in income tax last years?Take that number and multiply it by 0.001.What do you get?

So in summary, Maegera,NPS employees like fees, the public doesn't. Since the NPS are kings and queens who rule in their fiefdoms without oversight, taxpayers get fees and unlimited fee increases. Just like Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir intended. Public lands are for concessionaires and those that pay them well. It is capitalism on the backs of taxpayers.

Actually, we all might be very surprised at how many of our tax dollars do wind up going to amusement parks and other private operations. How many local governments provide tax breaks or special deals of some kind to those money makers because the money doesn't stop at the gate. People who attend the parks spend money in town. Just as people who visit national parks spend money in nearby tow

This entire article just makes me angry. Are the national parks just for the elite? For a lot of us, those fee hikes *can* make the difference between going to the parks or not, yet my tax dollars are supposedly going to fund something I probably won't be able to afford to visit because the fees are too high. I don't see any of my tax dollars going to Disneyland. That's the difference. It'

Thanks Kurt for shedding some light on the process. What is missing from the explanation is what the consultant’s original task was some 15 years ago? What was the goal in reviewing fees? To maximize revenue, keep the parks as affordable as possible or to compete with Disney theme parks?

There wasn't much information included in the story about that study, so it's not clear to me what was lacking in that one.I would say not including an analysis of what higher fees would do to behavior was a major shortfall of the first study. In fact, one must wonder what it was they did study if that was excluded.

ec - Not a problem, but I'm not sure what you meant when you said "The study should have been done right the first time." There wasn't much information included in the story about that study, so it's not clear to me what was lacking in that one.

I definitely don't like fees for anything. But given the current failure by Congress to get off their fannies and actually do something, what alternatives are there?Critics decry fees and increases, but don't offer any viable alternative ideas.

It would be nice if the parks were properly funded by congress on an ongoing basis. It would cost annually less than one of the mothballed and unused jets sitting in a desert graveyard. No more fighting over incremental fee increases, and the paranoid NPS haters would find some other reason to attack "Jarvis and and his jack booted thugs."

An interesting discussion. As to whether the NPS should have done another "study" before deciding to raise fees, I don't know what that would cost, but I'd bet a credible survey by a reliable firm to cover users of parks nationwide would run into 6, or more likely, 7 figures.

Interesting article Kurt, thank you. I am generally opposed to these fee increases. these are public lands and should be supported accordingly. The issue of comparability in setting campground fees is puzzling to me, where would you find this, private sector campgrounds that charge what the market will bear? Is this the direction we want to go in our parks?

Kurt, thank you for the post on the Bob Binnewies book, just excellent. I think Bob wanted to focus on the people of the park, I am ordering his book today. He was an outstanding Park Superintendent, very good hearted, highly intelligent, dedicated to both the visitor and the park resource. It was was a pleasure to work for him.

The real problem with Yosemite is that it's within a day trip of far too many people, and within an overnight of far too many more. I don't see there's much to be done about the fact that the nine-mile valley is being "loved" to death, unfortunately.

@MegaeraSimilar to Baxter State Park which sits right next to the proposed new national park, it would have an endowment created to help maintain the park so as to not impact the otherall budget of the park service.

My publicly available bio on NPT for the past five years: "Rick B. is a 60+ year old retired nurse, thoroughly enjoying the freedom of retirement. His wife is a museum curator for the NPS. ..." Never undisclosed. Moving on, as directed.

I figure your command of other facts is similar to your . .. guessing attack about my employment. I'm a retired nurse, collecting Social Security and a small corporate pension. I have never worked for the NPS in my life.I did not attack that the ballot box was stuffed - I wondered about the possibility. It happens on campaigns of all sorts on every side of issues.

Eric...My comment was about the method of mass opinion-making, not the side it is deployed upon. I think any of that stuff creates a false picture. Unless your only instinct is to immediately argue against something just because I said it, find another thing to complain about.

And one always has to wonder how many 'written comments' are mass generated identical postcards and organized cut-and-paste letter campaigns, versus individual citizens on their own generated comments.

Good point, Rick. And most people are much more likely to write a comment about something they oppose than one they support. Thus, virtually ANY study of this sort will be skewed toward NO.Kinda like requiring a dentist to do a survey of patients to see how many would support having fees raised to pull a tooth.

And one always has to wonder how many 'written comments' are mass generated identical postcards and organized cut-and-paste letter campaigns, versus individual citizens on their own generated comments.

What was requested above was "a link or copy of that record of comments." What was provided in the previous comment wasn't that information, but simply a link to another story on this much-hashed over issue. No helpful information there.

Like the rest of NPS employees your mind has been made up from the get go Dalton. But for others unfamiliar with the track record of fee abuse and subsequent data manipulation so.characteristic of Jarvis cabal, here is your link. /2011/12/hiker-wants-great-smokies-mountain-national-park-divulge-comments-proposed-backcountry-fee9125